PICCIONELLI, GREGORY A. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 3, 2020

14818970 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/818,970 08/05/2015 GREGORY A. PICCIONELLI GAP14003USU (GT-22) 6450
116438 7590 03/03/2020
Apogee Law Group
26895 Aliso Creek Road
Suite 104
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
EXAMINER
YODICHKAS, ANEETA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@goapogee.com
jcwilk@goapogee.com
mara@goapogee.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGORY A. PICCIONELLI and TED R. RITTMASTER
____________

Appeal 2019-005389
Application 14/818,970
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JAMES B. ARPIN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Examiner’s final
rejections of claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, and 25–35. Appeal Br. 4.2
Claims 4, 5, 8, 11–20, 23, and 24 are canceled; and claims 6, 7, and 33 are

1 “Appellant” here refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real parties-in-interest as Gregory A Piccionelli and
Ted R. Rittmaster. Appeal Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
September 25, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 21, 2019); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 4, 2018) and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 1, 2019); and the originally-filed Specification
(“Spec.,” filed August 5, 2015). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings
and determinations and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to
these documents.
Appeal 2019-005389
Application 14/818,970

2

withdrawn from consideration. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed inventions “relate[] to flexible display screen
systems and methods and, in particular embodiments, to systems and
methods in which one or more flexible display screens is formed as or
included in a wearable article or cover for an article.” Spec. ¶ 2.
As noted above, claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, and 25–35 stand
rejected. Claims 1 and 31 are independent. Appeal Br. 19 (claim 1), 22
(claim 31) (Claims App.). Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, and 25–30 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 1; and claims 32–35 depend directly from
claim 31. Id. at 19–23.
Claim 1 recites “[a] flexible display screen system,” and claim 31
recites “[a] method of making a flexible display screen system.” Id. at 19,
22. The Examiner relies on the same references and substantially similar
arguments in rejecting claims 1 and 31 (Final Act. 3–4, 7); and Appellant
only contests the rejections of claims 2, 21, 25, and 27 separately from claim
1 (Appeal Br. 15–16). Therefore, we focus our analysis on independent
claim 1 and the disputed and overlapping limitations recited in independent
claim 31.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative.
1. A flexible display screen system comprising:
an article comprising a flexible material configured to
cover at least a portion of a person's face or head;
Appeal 2019-005389
Application 14/818,970

3

at least one flexible display screen secured on the flexible
material and facing away from the person’s face or head when
the flexible material covers at least the portion of the person’s
face or head;
a computer system configured to provide image
information for controlling a display of images on the flexible
display screen, the images providing or enhancing a visual
appearance of a face feature;
wherein the flexible material and the at least one flexible
display screen have at least one transparent or semi-transparent
portion through which a feature of the person’s face or head is
visible through the article when the flexible material covers the
portion of the person’s face or head.
Id. at 19 (emphases added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references in rejecting the
claims:
Name3 Number Published Filed
Liguori US 2010/0263247 A1 Oct. 21, 2010 Apr. 21, 2009
Inagaki US 2015/0227245 A1 Aug. 13, 2015 Feb. 24, 2014
Rodriguez US 2015/0223532 A1 Aug. 13, 2015 Feb. 13, 2015
Bae US 2016/0116746 A1 Apr. 28, 2016 Nov. 5, 2015
Specifically, claims 1, 2, 21, 25–31, 34, and 35 stand rejected as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Liguori
and Bae (Final Act. 3–7); claims 3, 22, and 32 stand rejected as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Liguori, Bae, and
Rodriguez (id. at 7–8); and claims 9 and 10 stand rejected as unpatentable

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-005389
Application 14/818,970

4

under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Liguori, Bae, and
Inagaki (id. at 8–10).
Appellant contests the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1
(Appeal Br. 10–13) and relies on the alleged deficiencies in that rejection to
overcome the rejection of the independent claim 31 and the dependent
claims (id. at 13–14). Because we determine that reversal of the rejection of
independent claim 1 is dispositive, except for our ultimate decision, we do
not discuss the merits of the rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, and
25–35 further herein. We review the appealed rejection of independent
claim 1 for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light
of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We address the rejection
of claim 1 below.
ANALYSIS
1. Obviousness of Claim 1 Over Liguori and Bae
As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Liguori and Bae. Final Act. 3–4. In
particular, claim 1 recites, “a computer system configured to provide image
information for controlling a display of images on the flexible display
screen, the images providing or enhancing a visual appearance of a face
feature.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). We understand
these images are either a first visual appearance of a “facial feature” (Spec.
¶ 38) or a second visual appearance of an enhanced “facial feature” (id.), as
opposed to other visual appearances, which may be “stored and selected,”
such as “objects on the face,” including “nose studs or other jewelry, eye
patches, eye glasses, bandages, or the like” (id.). The Examiner finds that
Appeal 2019-005389
Application 14/818,970

5

Liguori teaches or suggests, “a wireless connection or plug-in socket
connection (224) is connected to control circuit (222) so as to attach a
computer to control the images on display (202) to provide or enhance the
visual appearance of the user’s forehead.” Final Act. 3–4 (citing Liguori,
Figs. 7, 8, ¶ 80); see Ans. 13. Thus, the Examiner finds Liguori teaches or
suggests this limitation. Appellant disagrees.
a. Liguori’s Teachings
Liguori’s Figure 7 is reproduced below.

Figure 7 depicts “a front view of the forehead adhesive display of the present
invention with a liquid crystal display (LCD) light display.” Liguori ¶ 44.
Liguori explains:
The forehead adhesive display 200 of FIG. 7 has a liquid crystal
display (LCD) light display 202. The flexible LCD display 202
should be thin, relatively lightweight, and flexible. The LCD
Appeal 2019-005389
Application 14/818,970

6

display can be made from plastic, polymer or other flexible
material. The LCD should withstand exposure to the outdoor and
indoor elements, and withstand perspiration of the wearer and
wrinkling of the forehead. The LCD should also support the
coating of the adhesive on the bottom surface without running of
the adhesive over time. The LCD should be non-allergenic and
not cause a rash or markings on the skin. The LCD can still
incorporate an ink display, in addition to the lighted aspect of the
display. Alternately, the display can just be a light display. The
light display can be static or animated (moving).
Id. ¶ 75. Thus, Liguori’s display has a coating of adhesive between the
display and the wearer’s forehead. See id., Fig. 8 (depicting bottom
adhesive coating 216), ¶ 76 (“The bottom surface 214 of the flexible display
sheet 212 will be coated with the reusable adhesive 216 for removable
attachment to the forehead.”).
The Specification’s Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Appeal 2019-005389
Application 14/818,970

7

Figure 2 depicts flexible display screen mask 100. Spec. ¶ 5. The
Specification explains:
In particular embodiments, the display screen layer 112 (or
the display screens in the layer 112) are formed of thin,
transparent or semi-transparent materials, so that the layer 101 is
visible through the display screen layer 112. In such
embodiments, the layer 101 may be colored, shaped and/or
otherwise configured to provide a first visual appearance of
facial features when the display screen(s) in the layer 112 are off
or otherwise not displaying an electronically generated image.
In those embodiments, the layer 112 enhances or otherwise
changes the visual appearance (to a second visual appearance)
of facial features on the mask 100. For example, a first visual
appearance may show some or all facial features of layer 101 as
appearing without makeup or other enhancements, while a
second visual appearance (with one or more display screen(s) in
the layer 112 providing an electronically generated image) may
show some or all of the same facial features as appearing with
makeup or other enhancements. A plurality of selectable images
(for example, each having an appearance of a different amount,
color, shade, tone, style or other quality of makeup, or other
different visible enhancement relative to the other selectable
images) may be available and selectable, as described above. . . .
Such other enhancements may include, but are not limited to,
images of other visual appearance features may be stored and
selected (e.g., other than makeup), such as, but not limited to,
features relating to the shape or contour of portions of the face
(e.g., nose shapes, lip shapes, cheek-bone structures, forehead
wrinkles, or the like) and/or images relating to objects on the face
(e.g., nose studs or other jewelry, eye patches, eye glasses,
bandages, or the like), to allow a user to selectively enhance or
change the visual appearance of the facial features on the layer
101 in other manners.
Id. ¶ 38 (emphasis added). Appellant contends:
Ligouri teaches to cover a person’s forehead with the display
sheet and show messages on the display sheet covering the
person’s forehead. As Ligouri is concerned with displaying
Appeal 2019-005389
Application 14/818,970

8

outward-directed messages on a sheet that is easy to read, there
would be no purpose or reason for Ligouri to employ a
transparent or semitransparent portion through which a feature of
a person’s face or head is visible. . . . The proposed purpose of
Liguori (to display messages on a display sheet adhered to a
person’s forehead) is contrary to a transparent or semi-
transparent portion through which a feature of a person’s face or
head is visible.
Appeal Br. 12–13. In light of Liguori’s disclosure, Liguori’s display sheet
covers a portion of the wearer’s face and displays an image and the display
sheet is attached to the wearer’s forehead with an adhesive, which obscure,
rather than enhance, the wearer’s facial features. See Liguori ¶¶ 61–69, 80.
Further, Liguori’s teachings for a message displayed on a person’s face (see
Liguori, Figs. 7, 8) are comparable to “objects on the face,” which
Appellant’s Specification distinguishes from claimed limitations relating to
features of a person’s face or head. Spec. ¶ 38 (emphasis added).
Consequently, we are not persuaded the Examiner has shown that Liguori
teaches or suggests that its forehead display produces images “providing or
enhancing a visual appearance of a face feature,” as defined in the
Specification and as recited in claim 1.
b. Bae’s Teachings
Further, the Examiner acknowledges:
Liguori is deficient in disclosing wherein the flexible
material and the at least one flexible display screen have at least
one transparent or semi-transparent portion through which a
feature of the person’s face or head is visible through the article
when the flexible material covers the portion of the person’s face
or head.
Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds, however,
Bae discloses wherein the flexible material and the at least one
Appeal 2019-005389
Application 14/818,970

9

flexible display screen have at least one transparent or semi-
transparent portion through which a feature of the person’s face
or head is visible through the article when the flexible material
covers the portion of the person’s face or head.
Id. (citing Bae, Fig. 11, ¶ 39).
Bae’s Figure 11 is reproduced below.

Figure 11 depicts “a state in which a wearer wears a head-mounted display
according to an embodiment of [Bae’s claimed] invention.” Bae ¶ 31. Bae
explains, “[t]he first arm 31 is made of a transparent flexible display having
the same function as smart glasses.” Id. ¶ 39. Moreover, Bae explains
when the head-mounted display 10 is in the first mode, the
wearer 1 may view the front through the first arm 31 as if the
wearer 1 wears glasses so that no limitation is provided to
general activities, and computing information, for example, the
information controlled by the control unit 51 may be effectively
provided through the first arm 31 to the entire field of view.
Id. ¶ 64 (emphasis added). Thus, Bae teaches that the purpose of transparent
Appeal 2019-005389
Application 14/818,970

10

first arm 31 is for the wearer to see out. Moreover, it is axiomatic that the
purpose of eyeglasses, especially, prescription lenses and sunglasses, is to
enable the wearer to see objects clearly, not for observers to see the wearer’s
face. Thus, Bae teaches the wearer may see out through first arm 31, but
does not teach necessarily that observers may see the wearer’s facial features
through first arm 31. See Appeal Br. 12. Therefore, we are not persuaded
that Bae teaches or suggests the limitation that the Examiner acknowledges
is missing from Liguori. See Final Act 4.
c. Reason to Combine
Finally, the Examiner concludes,
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the
art to have modified the flexible display screen as taught by
Liguori by including the flexible display screen having a
transparent portion as taught by Bae. The suggestion/motivation
would have been so the user is able to see through the flexible
display screen for safety.
Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). The U.S. Supreme Court instructs that
“[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of
endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007) (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the
Examiner fails to show where either Liguori or Bae teaches that safety is a
concern. Final Act. 4; see Liguori ¶ 63 (describing placement of display
sheet 12 above wearer’s eyes); Bae ¶ 64 (“so that no limitation is provided to
general activities”). Because Liguori’s display is mounted on the wearer’s
forehead above the eyebrows, Liguori does not demonstrate a need or
problem requiring Bae’s transparent screen; nor has the Examiner shown
Appeal 2019-005389
Application 14/818,970

11

one of ordinary skill would have considered such problem arising from
Liguori’s teachings. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 3–4; see Liguori ¶ 63. Thus,
we are not persuaded the Examiner has shown that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Liguori and
Bae based on a desire for “safety” to achieve the systems, as recited in claim
1.4
Consequently, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
2. The Remaining Claims
As noted above, Appellant challenges the rejection of independent
claim 31 for the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 13–14. Each of claims
2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, 25–30, and 32–35 depends directly or indirectly
from independent claim 1 or 12. Id. at 19–23 (Claims App.). Appellant
does not challenge the rejections of the independent claim 31 or, with a few
exceptions, the dependent claims separately from its challenge to the
rejection of claim 1. Id. at 14–18; see Reply Br. 5–7. Because we are
persuaded the Examiner erred with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claim 1, we also are persuaded the Examiner erred with respect to the

4 Claim 2 recites “the article [of claim 1] comprises a mask configured to
cover at least a portion of a person’s face or head, without covering any eye
of the person.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Although we reverse the
rejection of this claim based on the reversal of the rejection of its base claim,
it is particularly unclear why the Examiner’s stated reason for combining the
teachings of Liguori and Bae would be applicable to this embodiment. See
also id. at 19 (Claim 3 recites “wherein the mask includes one or more
openings that align with eyes on the person’s face to allow the person to see
through the mask while the flexible material covers at least the portion of the
person’s face or head.” (emphasis added)).
Appeal 2019-005389
Application 14/818,970

12

obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, and 25–35. For this
reason, we do not sustain the rejections of those claims.
DECISIONS
1. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, and
25–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Liguori and Bae, alone or in combination with another
reference.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, and 25–35 are not
unpatentable.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, and 25–35.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 21, 25–
31, 34, 35
103 Liguori, Bae

1, 2, 21, 25–
31, 34, 35
3, 22, 32 103 Liguori, Bae,
Rodriguez
4, 13, 16
9, 10 103 Liguori, Bae,
Inagaki
9, 10
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6, 7, 9,
10, 21, 22,
25–35

REVERSED